2008 (6) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 355/23/V/2007/Commr/RH, dated 3-10-2007. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue of confirmation of demand is undisputed by them as in an identical situation in respect of the very same issue, Tribunal vide its Order Nos. A/107-110/2007/WZB/C-I(EB), date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xtent it confirms the demand on the appellant is upheld and no interference is called for to that portion of the order. 4. As regards the penalty, we find that the Commissioner imposed penalty only on the following reasons :- With regard to the imposition of penalty under Rules 25 and 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee, inter alia, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ttention to annexure attached to the order. We find that the balance for the period in question, i.e., March, 2007 was ₹ 152.17 crores, while the abatement claimed by the applicant was ₹ 108.76 crores. We find that the balance in the Cenvat account is very much higher and the reasoning for non-imposing penalty in earlier proceedings will be valid for this case also. As such, we find th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X